Discussion Americans are flooding into Mexico City

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,332
7,257
136
This isn't going to last forever though. The worker shortages led to inflation and less economic output, neither of which are good. Combined with the Fed's rate hikes to combat inflation, and we're staring at recession and mass layoffs, and all wage gains being erased.
I think the 0% interest rates, rock bottom mortgage rates, and sending out a ton of NSA cash lead to a lot of the inflation. Plus the whole, world shutting down and the collapse of global supply networks. Not to mention the massive profit taking by corporations, especially in energy.

But yeah, employees finally getting some raises likely had some impact on inflation. Regardless, I never said the lack of immigration was a good thing, I said it was part of the worker shortage, which has driven up wages. Even if we enter a recession, I doubt all of the wage gains will be erased.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,332
7,257
136
I don’t know if that’s actually accurate. You can have an overall global shrinking population and still have an increase in global warming. How? If the populations that are shrinking are from wealthy nations (1st world nations) but there continues to be a growing population in 3rd world countries (or developing countries) then there is a good chance the developing countries are using and increasing their use of global warming type energy supplies.

I’d argue that the best route is to help developing countries become 1st world countries so that they can transition to more greener energy supplies. It can also be argued that as a nation becomes more “1st world” (or whatever the term would be for energy dependent and a thriving economy and a major middle class) that there is a natural tendency to have less children and therefore leads to a shrinking population.
There is also a natural tendency to dramatically increase your environmental footprint. Single Americans use far more resources than families of 10 in Africa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
108,324
25,171
146


Interesting contrast to migrants flooding into America....it seems no country likes foreign people disrupting their towns and cities.
Thanks for the update!
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,332
7,257
136
Also: "People upset new people are coming into their neighborhood and changing it. News at 11.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
15,719
10,979
146
I don’t know if that’s actually accurate. You can have an overall global shrinking population and still have an increase in global warming. How? If the populations that are shrinking are from wealthy nations (1st world nations) but there continues to be a growing population in 3rd world countries (or developing countries) then there is a good chance the developing countries are using and increasing their use of global warming type energy supplies.

I’d argue that the best route is to help developing countries become 1st world countries so that they can transition to more greener energy supplies. It can also be argued that as a nation becomes more “1st world” (or whatever the term would be for energy dependent and a thriving economy and a major middle class) that there is a natural tendency to have less children and therefore leads to a shrinking population.
Well yes that could happen to. But your second paragraph was basically my point.

I’ve been saying that for awhile now - from 2015:


I haven't finished the post yet but here's what I've got so far.

So how do we go about stoping and reversing climate change? We'll start by using the goal Glenn gave in this thread of reducing our carbon foot print by 40% by 2050 and the IPCC goal of 100% in 2100.

To effectively analyze this issue we need to know three things:

  • How much power per capita do we need by 2050 and by 2100
  • Is there mix of power that could realistically reduce and eliminate our CO2 emissions
  • How much CO2 needs to be pulled out of the air to reverse MMGW



Our carbon footprint for the most part is tied to the global population, mix of power sources, and standard of living expressed in terms of kWH per person per year. Reduce any of these and our carbon foot print goes down.

Now the green extremists don't seem to care about people or standards of living as long as the environment is protected. The conservative extremists don't care about people or protecting the environment if it reduces profits/economy. While both extremes are just opposite side of the same crazy coin there is a kernel of truth in each. The environment needs to be protected because we need it. The economy also needs to be protected because we need it too.

So my goal is to find a solution that simultaneously maintains or raises the standard of living while reducing our carbon footprint.

The only way I see to do that is to reduce the future population of the planet. The only way to do that ethically and morally is to increase the standard of living in the third world so birth rates drop and global population declines.

To increase the standard of living the number of kWh per person per year must increase. To do that while simultaneously reducing our carbon foot print before the population begins to reduce means significantly changing our mix of power sources.

To answer this question we need to know whether it's possible to reduce global population through standard of living and are there alternative power sources that could reasonably displace coal, oil and natural gas.

First up global population. From UN projections we are looking most likely at slowing growth but still peeking at 10+billion by 2050.




The breakdown shows that most of the gain is coming from developing nations. Developed nations actually have slowly declining or stagnating populations:




When looking at the break down by country, the countries with the highest birth rates also have some of the lowest kWh per person per year.
List of Countries by Birth Rate

Table of Countries by kWh per capita per year

For example:

Ethiopia has a rate of natural increase (birth rate - death rate) of over 32 but only 52 kWh per person per year

Italy on the other hand has a slightly negative rate of natural increase of -1.26 and over 5500 kWh per capita per year.

So the question is:

If we assume that by taking action to raise 3rd world quality of living we'll hit the lower peak population of ~8.5billion in 2050 how many kWh do we need to raise everyone up to 1st world quality of living while replacing 40% fossil fuel usage.?


Assumption 1: 1st world quality of living standards (~ Italy@ 5500kwh/person year) will let us reach the lower predicted global population

Assumption 2: Efficiency gains of 10% will be available by 2050 lowering the total kWH per person year required by ~ 500kwh/ person year for the third world

Assumption 3: There are currently 6 billion people in the third world with an average 1000kwh/person year who will need another 4000kwh/person year to reach 1st world quality of living

Assumption 4: 1.5billion new people in the third world need 5000kwh/person year in 2050 to reach 1st world quality of living

So for new generation we need:

6billion people x (4000kwh/person year) + 1.5billion people x (5000kwh/person year) =

3.60TW or 31.5trillion kWH per year in additional generation in 2050


In 2014 the world used about 17TW of power or 1.496x10^14kWh/year

Split as follows:
  • Petroleum: 5.75TW
  • Coal: 5.12TW
  • Natural Gas: 4.11TW
  • Nuclear: 0.82TW
  • Renewable: 1.37TW


So to hit the target of 40% reduction of emissions by 2050 we need to replace:

.4 x (Coal + Natural Gas + Oil) =
5.96TW or 5.2X 10^13kWh/year

Total new clean power generation required for 2050 (40% fossil fuel replacement + new generation)= 5.96TW + 3.6TW =

9.56TW or 8.37 X 10^13 kwh/yr

Let's take a look at 2100 and see what it would require to get to 0 fossil fuel usage.

Assumption 5: With the third world now at 1st world standard of living assume a reduction to 6Billion people by 2100

Assumption 6: Another 10% efficiency gain is possible by 2100.

So to calculate the required clean power generation let's take the total power required in 2050 with 8.5billion and scale it down to 6billion and take another 10% off:

(17TW +3.6TW) (6B/8.5B)(.9)=

13.1TW Total clean generation in 2100

Now in 2050 we are already generating 11.75 TW cleanly so by 2100 we only have to generate another:

1.33TW

Population reduction means over 6TW of fossil fuel generation can be removed. Leaving only the 1.33TW to be covered by clean generation.

Next up how feasible is it to generate this energy cleanly.




For the purposes of this post I'm going to look at two of the most obvious clean options:

  • Nuclear Fission
  • Solar


We'll also assume that fossil fuels for transportation can be replaced by battery electric, fuels cell, or carbon neutral bio/synthetic fuels by 2100.

Nuclear - Pros & Cons:

Nuclear fission is clean from a greenhouse gas perspective as nothing is burned. It's also incredibly power dense compared to other common power sources:

  • Natural Uranium (.7%U235) in a LWR - 443,000MJ/KG
  • Reactor Grade Uranium (3.5%U235) in LWR - 3,456,000MJ/KG
  • Natural Uranium in a Breeder Reactor - 86,000,000MJ/KG
  • D-T Fusion - 576,000,000MJ/KG
  • Oil - 46.3MJ/KG
  • Coal - 32.5MJ/KG

Nuclear fission, depending on the process, releases 10,000 to 100,000 times more energy in a light water reactor than oil; 2 million times more in a breeder reactor.

In section one we calculated that by 2050 we would need 9.56TW of clean energy with an additional 1.33TW by 2100.

How much Uranium would that require?

In 2013 world wide nuclear power production was 364GW (link).

To generate that the industry used a block of Uranium 14.5m/side:



To generate all the power required in part one in 2050 we would need about 28 of those Uranium blocks per year.

By 2100 we would need about an additional 4 blocks for a total of 32 blocks of Uranium.

If instead of light water reactors, breeders were used, a single block could generate 5 times more power than is required in 2100.

For comparisons sake this the size block of oil produced in 2013:


So the pro's are it's entirely possible to generate the required amount of power needed with no more uranium mining required than we already do.

The cons are how many new reactors are needed and the risk from the waste. The use of breeders can significantly reduce that risk by continuing to "burn" the waste as fuel reducing the amount of waste and drastically shortening the storage requirements.

There are some great designs for small modular reactors in the 10MW-50MW size that could be good for developing countries. Designs would need to take proliferation into account.

(link)

Solar Pro's and Cons

Solar is another and complimentary option.

The Earth intercepts ~ 2x10^17W of solar power. This is about 20000 times more power than we need in 2100. Hypothetically it could supply all the power we would ever need.

Let's make some assumptions and see what would be a reasonable amount of solar power to generate from a low cost third world country solution.

Assumption 1: For developing countries assume fixed solar arrays that point south, in the Northern Hemisphere and north in the Southern Hemisphere. Tracking arrays are more efficient but can break down. Fixed arrays can just be set up and left.

Assumption 2: Let's assume a 10m^2 array per person, (roughly 10ft by 10ft).

Assumption 3: Per this site, which unfortunately has changed significantly since I started investigating this,(link) let's assume that the average yearly US solar insolation of ~5kwh/day for a fixed array pointed south at latitude is a good proxy for anywhere in the world.

Assumption 4: Assume the average efficiency of a mid-late 21st century solar array is ~ 25%. (The ISS arrays designed in the 80's are in the teens, stuff coming out the labs today are max at 40%).

kwh/person year = 5kwh/day x 365days x .25 = 456kwh/year

Or

.442TW per year

While that's a 50% increase above the baseline of 1000kwh/person year for most of the third world today it's only about 5% of the 9.56TW power we are looking for by 2050.

To completely replace the rest of the power we calculated for 2050 using the best solar arrays at 40% efficiency, dual axis sun tracking, and in the sunniest places around the word like the American Southwest (link), we get about

12kWH/m^2 per day x .4 x 365days

=1752 kWH/m^2 per year.

(9.56TW per year - .442TW per year) x (1 / 1752kWH/m^2 per year) =

46,000 km^2 worth of arrays.

Or

A square 213km on a side.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,137
1,469
126
Cost of living is super cheap in Mexico and abroad. When I lived in Bangkok, Thailand my rent was $150 a month. That was for a one room condo with no kitchen. Wasn't a great living arrangement, especially with a girlfriend. If I wanted a larger apartment. Say a 2-bedroom condo with a kitchen my rent would had been $400-500 per month. Still super cheap.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
20,486
7,400
136
Many in Mexico pay 60% of their income for housing alone, in America cheap labor makes it harder for Americans to be paid a fair wage so they can afford to pay for housing, food, gas, etc.
Americans don't want those jobs!
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,908
17,153
136
Many in Mexico pay 60% of their income for housing alone, in America cheap labor makes it harder for Americans to be paid a fair wage so they can afford to pay for housing, food, gas, etc.
The issue with wages in the US is because since the 70s we've stopped passing on the gains in productivity to the actual workers. Instead those have gone almost exclusively to the investor class leading to stagnate wage growth.

But yeah keep pointing at the poor brown people as the cause of economic inequality and stress in this country.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,911
12,417
136
The issue with wages in the US is because since the 70s we've stopped passing on the gains in productivity to the actual workers. Instead those have gone almost exclusively to the investor class leading to stagnate wage growth.

But yeah keep pointing at the poor brown people as the cause of economic inequality and stress in this country.
Can you blame him though? We’ve had 40+ years of Republican economic propaganda where they’ve managed to convince a majority of Americans that we shouldn’t value our workers let alone put people before profits.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,252
1,089
126
What does ‘slowly absorbing’ mean to you, specifically?
Maybe having a known yearly limit so communities can properly plan for and forecast future growth for building infrastructure like schools or jobs? We can do it your way and think having millions of unplanned individuals with low or no skills, inability to self support, and no understanding of the host country's language is the better way to handle growth. I guess you need some indentured servants to mow your lawn and handle tasks deemed beneath you.

You have zero clues and just regurgitate stupid talking points about illegal aliens are needed and they are a net gain to the economy. Your exploration into the impact of unregulated immigration is that it makes the racist MAGAs mad and so that is good enough for you.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,065
33,903
136
Maybe having a known yearly limit so communities can properly plan for and forecast future growth for building infrastructure like schools or jobs? We can do it your way and think having millions of unplanned individuals with low or no skills, inability to self support, and no understanding of the host country's language is the better way to handle growth. I guess you need some indentured servants to mow your lawn and handle tasks deemed beneath you.

You have zero clues and just regurgitate stupid talking points about illegal aliens are needed and they are a net gain to the economy. Your exploration into the impact of unregulated immigration is that it makes the racist MAGAs mad and so that is good enough for you.
So what is that yearly limit?
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,811
4,008
136
Maybe having a known yearly limit so communities can properly plan for and forecast future growth for building infrastructure like schools or jobs? We can do it your way and think having millions of unplanned individuals with low or no skills, inability to self support, and no understanding of the host country's language is the better way to handle growth. I guess you need some indentured servants to mow your lawn and handle tasks deemed beneath you.

You have zero clues and just regurgitate stupid talking points about illegal aliens are needed and they are a net gain to the economy. Your exploration into the impact of unregulated immigration is that it makes the racist MAGAs mad and so that is good enough for you.
You do know that 50% of our ag workers are undocumented immigrants, right? That by itself would answer any question about net gain, whatever that means.

 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,970
5,735
136
Are any of these retirees actually originally from Mexico? Or are 'returning Mexican migrants who've made good money in the US' a separate category?

I've heard many times that people in that general category (not just Mexicans or migrants to the US) can encounter problems when they go 'home', also - being perceived as 'rich' and easy-targets for criminals.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
59,499
7,717
126
To me, it's funny that the Mexican people are complaining about Americans "invading" their country when they've been doing the same thing to the USA forever.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 13Gigatons

ASK THE COMMUNITY